Bike racks on buses

[esuhl]

That's completely crazy. Think of the harm they'd cause to pedestrians in an accident!

I'd love to be able to take my bike on the bus, but mounting them on the front is unsafe.

[Cyril Haearn]

The rack railway in Stuttgartopen takes bikes, an open wagon is attached to the tramcar on the uphill side so the driver may observe the bikes
Cycle travel is only allowed to and from the top and bottom stations to avoid delays loading/unloading

Bikes are only carried uphill not downhill

[mjr]

That's completely crazy. Think of the harm they'd cause to pedestrians in an accident!

I'd love to be able to take my bike on the bus, but mounting them on the front is unsafe.

1. Do they increase pedestrian injury in practice where they are already used? A bus front isn't exactly harmless to them already.
2. Could it have a crumpling aero faring on the rack front to mitigate the risk?

[reohn2]

Same effect,different reason

Not sure I follow Reohn. Your objection to their use in the UK appeared to be that they rely on pedestrians staying out of the way because of Jaywalking laws. I'm just observing that they work fine here in Edmonton without jaywalking laws.

Not my objection but UK law for PSV vehicles in the UK that can't be bypassed,and yes I agree with the other poster that bullbars should be illegal too
Front bike racks on buses seem to work in Edmonton Canada because drivers are more careful around pedestrians(your previous post).Ask any cyclist in the UK which drivers are the worst around cyclists and bus drivers will be near the top of the list.
I also feel sure if a vote was taken of UK drivers the majority would want a jaywalking law.

[reohn2]

That's completely crazy. Think of the harm they'd cause to pedestrians in an accident!

I'd love to be able to take my bike on the bus, but mounting them on the front is unsafe.

1. Do they increase pedestrian injury in practice where they are already used? A bus front isn't exactly harmless to them already.

But it begs the question would a bike rack make matters worse?
IMO the answer is yes.

2. Could it have a crumpling aero faring on the rack front to mitigate the risk?

It could,but would that delay boarding a lighting unnecessarily?
Would it impede driver vision?
Thinking about it such a fairing would be a yes to both those questions.

I think the question is are front bike racks less safe for pedestrians?
IMO the answer to that is yes they are,bus fronts aren't a good thing for a pedestrian to be in collision with,with bikes on the front they're far worse.
Should a fairing be fitted it would need to be as low to the ground as a bus front to satisfy safety regs(I think) which would impede the bus when a change of road surface/camber is encountered.
I'm thinking entering exiting side roads and bus stations,if you've ever watched buses negotiating such situations their front overhang is very close to the ground and needs to be for infirm passengers boarding and a lighting,extending that overhang even further forward could cause grounding.

[mjr]

1. Do they [front-mounted racks] increase pedestrian injury in practice where they are already used? A bus front isn't exactly harmless to them already.

But it begs the question would a bike rack make matters worse?
IMO the answer is yes.

How do you reach that opinion? Bus bumpers already often protrude slightly so that's what hits people. If the bike rack had an equivalent bumper on its front, it's difficult to see why it would be worse than the existing one - it's still the same weight of bus hitting them. It need not be a bull-bar-style square protrusion making the initial impact.

Anyway, that's our opinions, but can anyone find some evidence?

2. Could it have a crumpling aero faring on the rack front to mitigate the risk?

It could,but would that delay boarding a lighting unnecessarily?
Would it impede driver vision?
Thinking about it such a fairing would be a yes to both those questions.

I don't see why something non-obstructive in front of the rack would add any more delay and it would be far quicker than a rear rack.

Reducing driver vision is a fair comment. I'm not sure whether it's enough to matter, though - how often does the bus driver look down that near the front bumper?

Should a fairing be fitted it would need to be as low to the ground as a bus front to satisfy safety regs(I think) which would impede the bus when a change of road surface/camber is encountered.

I think it only needs to be as low as the current bumpers, which isn't particularly low and has plenty of clearance to clear traffic calming, cambers and so on.

I'm thinking entering exiting side roads and bus stations,if you've ever watched buses negotiating such situations their front overhang is very close to the ground and needs to be for infirm passengers boarding and a lighting,extending that overhang even further forward could cause grounding.

Buses here have lowering suspension (usually enough to reach our high bus stop kerbs) and fold-out access ramps (for other locations). I'm expecting that racks would be fitted to such modern buses.

[middleagedspread]

Not my objection but UK law for PSV vehicles in the UK that can't be bypassed ... I also feel sure if a vote was taken of UK drivers the majority would want a jaywalking law.

Okay, I understand, I wasn't aware that the law prevented front loading bicycle racks. You are probably right about the desire to remove 'obstacles' (i.e. pedestrians and cyclists) from the roads, too.

I should clarify that the willingness of Edmonton drivers to yield to pedestrians correlates negatively with speed and traffic weight. Most suburban streets are wide, slow moving and relatively safe: drivers will stop if someone is waiting at the side of the road to cross. On busier trunk roads there is an expectation that pedestrians will use traffic signals and designated crossings. There is some hostility to cyclists, though not as bad as in the UK. The busier roads often have parallel streets separated only by a grass covered meridian, providing alternative routes for cycles (though increasing the number of junctions that have to be negotiated). In the winter, when these were not cleared of snow and ice, I'd stick to the (right hand lane of a two lane) trunk road, and occasionally got the "Gerroftheroaaaad" (inevitably from a pickup truck driver).

Edmonton finally began installing separated bike lanes last year, and unsurprisingly we are seeing an upsurge in cycling. The lanes are sprayed to keep them clear of ice in the winter, and though they are only in the downtown so far, it makes a huge difference to my perception of safety on the commute.

And I suspect that perception of safety is the issue with bus bike racks too. Like h**mets, it seems obvious they would have a big effect on safety. But like mjr I'd be interested whether

...they [front-mounted racks] increase pedestrian injury in practice where they are already used?

[reohn2]

1. Do they [front-mounted racks] increase pedestrian injury in practice where they are already used? A bus front isn't exactly harmless to them already.

But it begs the question would a bike rack make matters worse?
IMO the answer is yes.

How do you reach that opinion? Bus bumpers already often protrude slightly so that's what hits people. If the bike rack had an equivalent bumper on its front, it's difficult to see why it would be worse than the existing one - it's still the same weight of bus hitting them. It need not be a bull-bar-style square protrusion making the initial impact.

Buses round our way are vertical slab fronted,but If a bumper at low level(ankle to mid calf height) hits a pedestrian they then hit the flat/slab front of the bus with torso and head,which is bad enough.A bumper at the same level with bikes above it would be worse IMO,there's a lot of sharp protrusions on bikes,handlebars,brake levers,pedals chainrings,etc.

Anyway, that's our opinions, but can anyone find some evidence?

Quite right but a bit of applied logic seems apt,see above.

2. Could it have a crumpling aero faring on the rack front to mitigate the risk?

It could,but would that delay boarding a lighting unnecessarily?
Would it impede driver vision?
Thinking about it such a fairing would be a yes to both those questions.

I don't see why something non-obstructive in front of the rack would add any more delay and it would be far quicker than a rear rack.

A fairing of any kind would need to be hinged in some way for cyclists to access the rack which means it needs to be secured after loading,can passengers really be expected to be responsible such safety measures?
Buses are flat fronted so the driver has as much forward vision as possible,compromising that with a fairing in front of a bike rack would IMO compromise safety

Reducing driver vision is a fair comment. I'm not sure whether it's enough to matter, though - how often does the bus driver look down that near the front bumper?

I think it is enough to matter,any blind spot on the front of any vehicle isn't desirable,more so on PSV vehicles.

Should a fairing be fitted it would need to be as low to the ground as a bus front to satisfy safety regs(I think) which would impede the bus when a change of road surface/camber is encountered.

I think it only needs to be as low as the current bumpers, which isn't particularly low and has plenty of clearance to clear traffic calming, cambers and so on

.
I disagree,the further the front overhang the more chance of grounding.

I'm thinking entering exiting side roads and bus stations,if you've ever watched buses negotiating such situations their front overhang is very close to the ground and needs to be for infirm passengers boarding and a lighting,extending that overhang even further forward could cause grounding.

Buses here have lowering suspension (usually enough to reach our high bus stop kerbs) and fold-out access ramps (for other locations). I'm expecting that racks would be fitted to such modern buses.

I would expect any bus with a front rack to be able to meet all current safety standards the fact that they don't seems to prove the case.

Previously I put the case forward for rear racks,I've not read or seen anything to persuade me otherwise so I'll stick with that opinion YVMV.

[thirdcrank]

I'm not clear what problem people think this will solve.

The preference of front-mounted against rear is partly based on the speed of loading/unloading but that seems to imply only using the bus for shortish journeys which seems a bit pointless: why not just ride your bike over that distance? Over a worthwhile distance - ie one where a bus would be faster and, therefore, worthwhile, then rear-mounted seems safer all-round.

The type of thing I'm thinking of here is day trips starting in urban areas visiting the countryside. Not something I've used but from time to time bus services have operated from Leeds and possibly elsewhere for walkers and cyclists into the Dales.

The only short distance scenario I can visualise would be something like a longish road bridge with no pedestrian or cycle access where a short bus route might operate when the front-mounted would win hands down but it seems far-fetched.

[gaz]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2274/220 ... z.jpg?zz=1

[reohn2]

I'm not clear what problem people think this will solve.

The preference of front-mounted against rear is partly based on the speed of loading/unloading but that seems to imply only using the bus for shortish journeys which seems a bit pointless: why not just ride your bike over that distance? Over a worthwhile distance - ie one where a bus would be faster and, therefore, worthwhile, then rear-mounted seems safer all-round.

The type of thing I'm thinking of here is day trips starting in urban areas visiting the countryside. Not something I've used but from time to time bus services have operated from Leeds and possibly elsewhere for walkers and cyclists into the Dales.

The only short distance scenario I can visualise would be something like a longish road bridge with no pedestrian or cycle access where a short bus route might operate when the front-mounted would win hands down but it seems far-fetched.

Which was my point up thread about buses with rear mounted racks on longer few or no stop between destinations

[mjr]

So everyone just ignores the safety and security arguments?

[thirdcrank]

I'm not clear what problem people think this will solve. ...

In an attempt to answer my own point, I've been back to the link in the OP and found this:

Cycle racks extend the range of the “last mile” to the “last three miles”.

While I understand the words, I don't understand what the sentence means. I presume that as 'last mile' is in quotes, it has a specific meaning in some quarters.

[horizon]

I'm not clear what problem people think this will solve. ...

If you mean bike racks in buses on general, then that would be simply to increase the flexibility of using a bike. If you mean bike racks on the front of buses, then I'm not sure myself - I just used the link to kick off a general discussion about bike racks. I would have been happy too to hear any views about bikes on buses, carried inside or in the boot (I would include coaches in this).

[reohn2]

So everyone just ignores the safety and security arguments?

I don't understand this post.